CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. GA-0561
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2007

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Under the terms of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, a pool hall may operate on a BYOB ("bring your own bottle") basis without a permit or license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Moreover, the City of Corsicana may not by municipal ordinance regulate the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages within a pool hall that operates on a BYOB basis.

BYOB regulationAlcoholic Beverage CodeMunicipal ordinancesState preemption doctrinePool hall operationsAlcoholic beverage licensingPermit requirementsDry areasWet areasPrivate club status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGrath v. Lake Tree Village Associates

Plaintiff, an employee of Deacon, was injured while carrying a scaffold pick on a construction site owned by Lake Tree Village Associates, walking over a dirt pile. Plaintiff sued Lake Tree alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied Lake Tree's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed, finding no evidence Lake Tree exercised control, thus negating liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence, and also noting no duty to protect against readily observable conditions. Furthermore, the court ruled that OSHA standards do not provide a basis for liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), and most cited Industrial Code provisions were either general, not applicable, or reiterated common-law duties, thus not supporting liability under § 241 (6).

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code ViolationsOSHA StandardsSummary JudgmentConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorScaffold Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ashby v. ARC Electric Corp.

The claimant, a 56-year-old assistant foreman with a pre-existing coronary condition, suffered a heart injury after walking up 9 to 10 flights of stairs at his job site to distribute pay envelopes. An elevator was available, but the claimant chose to walk leisurely. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant’s work activities were stressful and constituted an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that his disability was causally related to this injury. The board's finding was supported by substantial evidence and medical evidence regarding causal effect. The appellate court affirmed the decision, stating that the claimant's choice to walk the stairs instead of taking the elevator was not significant.

Workers' CompensationHeart InjuryAccidental InjuryEmployment-RelatedPre-existing ConditionCausationAppellate DecisionMedical EvidenceStair ClimbingOccupational Stress
References
2
Case No. 05-10-00152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

In Re CPY

The core issue in this appeal is the interpretation of the phrase 'full time basis' within a divorce decree, which governs the termination of contractual alimony obligations. Appellant Lisa Davis Wells challenged a summary judgment ruling that had deemed her to be working on a full-time basis, thereby ending alimony payments from appellee Lawrence Ray Youst. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, determined that the term 'full time basis' was ambiguous because it lacked a clear and definite meaning within the decree or various statutory contexts. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial to resolve the factual question of the parties' original intent.

AlimonyDivorce DecreeContract InterpretationAmbiguitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexas LawRemandContractual Obligation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. Katz

This case addresses a constitutional challenge to a residency requirement for a town justice/town board member position on Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County. Petitioners, Fishers Island residents Arthur J. Walsh and Nina J. Schmid, objected to respondent Daniel C. Ross's candidacy because he did not meet the specific residency criteria. The Appellate Division upheld the statute's constitutionality, applying a rational basis test. Ross appealed, advocating for a strict scrutiny standard and arguing that the residency requirement violated equal protection by diluting voter influence. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the rational basis test was appropriate given the indirect impact on voting rights, and found a rational basis in ensuring meaningful representation for the geographically unique Fishers Island community.

Constitutional LawElection LawResidency RequirementEqual Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewStrict ScrutinyTown JusticeTown Board MemberFishers IslandSouthold
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meringolo v. City of New York

This case involves Corrections Captains, led by Peter Meringolo, suing the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The central dispute revolves around whether these employees qualify for the 'bona fide executive' exemption from FLSA overtime requirements, which hinges on satisfying the Department of Labor's 'salary basis test'. The court, presided over by District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, determined that certain parts of the traditional salary basis test, specifically those concerning partial-day absences and leave for jury duty/witness/military service, were invalid for public employees due to principles of public accountability. However, the court found that the defendants violated the disciplinary penalties provision of the salary basis test, as Corrections Captains were subject to suspensions without pay for infractions not considered safety rules of major significance, based on the Corporation Counsel's admissions. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted, denying the defendants' Portal-to-Portal Act defense.

FLSAOvertime PayPublic EmployeesSalary Basis TestDisciplinary ActionsSummary JudgmentBona Fide Executive ExemptionPublic AccountabilityMunicipal LawLabor Law
References
29
Case No. ADJ994369 (SDO 0274313)
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

JOSE JUAREZ vs. WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision, specifically rescinding the finding that there was no basis for attorney's fees. The Board determined that the employer's unreasonable delay in paying compensation established a basis for attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5814.5. While the applicant didn't initially cite this specific section, the issue of attorney's fees was preserved. The case is returned to the trial level for determination of reasonable attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWatkins Manufacturing CorporationLabor Code Section 5814.5Attorney's FeesUnreasonable DelayReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeNotice of IntentionTrial Level
References
5
Case No. ADJ809010 (LAO 0877737)
Regular
Feb 28, 2012

Jessica Leaser vs. Washington Mutual, Zurich North America, SRS/SEDGWICK Claims Management Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed three days after the statutory deadline. Although the administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a notice of intent to sanction the lien claimant for proceeding to trial without a legal basis, the Board granted removal on its own motion. The Board rescinded the sanctions, finding the WCJ's assessment of "no factual or legal basis" unsupported on the current record, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionJurisdictional Time LimitsRemoval on Board MotionMonetary SanctionsNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsRescinded SanctionsLien ClaimantClaims Administrator
References
4
Case No. 03-07-00014-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

Quintin Joseph Carruthers v. State

Appellant Quintin Joseph Carruthers pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and was sentenced to twenty years in prison, along with a $4,000 restitution order. Appellant appealed, arguing there was no factual basis in the record for the restitution amount. The court reviewed the victim's testimony which identified stolen items and confirmed a total loss of $4,000. The appellate court concluded that the victim's testimony provided an adequate factual basis for the restitution order. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

BurglaryRestitutionFactual BasisCriminal ProcedureSentencingAppellate ReviewWitness TestimonyProperty LossTexas Penal CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,458 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational